fairly true.
I've received horrible nutritional/supplementation advice from a general practitioner.
Unless someone specializes in nutrition or is a huge part of the studies, they're just regurgiating info much like we are.

Nutritionists don't even agree with each other. You'll have anti-meat, anti-dairy, anti-gluten, anti-carbs, pro-carbs, etc within the community. The bottom line is different things work for different people. But when a cyclist asks if a glass of milk is "bad" in terms of health/performance the answer, in my opinion, would be no. Especially in terms of performance.

Cyclists get heart disease too...

McGillivray thought that his running would clean his pipes by burning off whatever he ate. Last October he learned that he was wrong...

... I assume you know that most cardiologists and nutritionists would tell you the opposite -- that you should AVOID saturated fat and cholesterol?

The studies that show problems with saturated facts lumped the man-made trans fats with natural saturated facts. These are not all the same. In fact, there are good trans fats, like CLA, which you find in grass-fed meats and milk. Equating these compounds with Crisco is just bad science. Saturated fats are an entire family of compounds. It's not just a single boogy-man out there. There are good and bad compounds that are in the family of saturated fats. The bad ones are damn near always man made.

Saturated fats are good to cook with, in fact, better than a mono-unsaturated in most cases because they are much more heat stable and don't oxidize. If you cook with a light olive oil, you'll end up producing all sorts of nasty oxides which are a much more detrimental than than any complaint you could have with naturally occurring saturated fats.

Of course, you don't care about this because you come from a 'fat is evil' paradigm, so that's all you see. We do not all believe what you do.

As far as milk goes, I think there are probably good and bad aspects to it. It causes a big insulin response, which I'm not a fan of in most cases. Post workout, though, it's probably not too bad a deal. The cheap stuff is pretty dodgy with respect to what chemicals it might contain. If you get grass-fed milk, then it's pretty good stuff as long as you tolerate milk (cream top from Trader Joe's is a good option). Many people have trouble with digesting casein and if you do, then you should probably avoid it. At the end of the day, milk is very effective at making small mammals into big mammals. If you're a bodybuilder doing a mass gain, then you're hard-pressed to do better.

Coconut milk is also good for you, but loaded with calories from fat, which is bad for my slow metabolism.

I find that when I'm craving a lot of milk, or milk alot, I'm actually low on my protein intake.

I don't think a little coconut milk is going to hurt either, provided you stay within your caloric needs for the day.
Coconut has "good" fats, I used to start every morning with a TBS of coconut oil in my coffee, even when I was dropping weight.

Beans are pretty great, and rather inexpensive. But many people find it hard to eat food after a hard workout, that's when I reach for milk.

People just have to find what works for them. We can find a study saying just about any dietary idea is bad in one way or another.

In terms of providing calories, the "big-four provisioners" in the Kenyans' diets were:

ugali, with 23 percent of total calories

sugar, with 20 percent of all calories

rice, at 14 percent

milk, hitting 13 percent

No other single food provided more than six percent of daily caloric sustenance (bread was at six percent, with potatoes and beans at five percent each). Milk provided the lion's share of protein, with 28 percent of daily protein grams (and calories), followed by beans, with a respectable 19-percent share, and rice and ugali were neck-and-neck for third and fourth, with 12 and 11 percent of daily protein, respectively. A smaller surprise? Since the Kenyans relied so heavily on full-cream milk as a source of energy and protein, their daily consumption of saturated fat checked in at about 28 grams -- 252 calories out of the daily caloric quota of 3,000 or so.

Now, the "New" science might say that human milk is only good for the baby if it comes from a grass fed mom -- but it might be hard to find one of those... (please forgive my cynicsm of the "New" science...)

Now, the "New" science might say that human milk is only good for the baby if it comes from a grass fed mom -- but it might be hard to find one of those... (please forgive my cynicsm of the "New" science...)

I gave up breast milk long ago.

The study to which you are linking references babies who went off breast milk and onto cow's milk at less than 4 months. I definitely agree that breast milk is best for infants. Next project for you: find a study that shows the superiority of breast milk for adults, or even children over the age of 12 months. Yeah, that's just what we want: moms afraid to give milk to their children when their own dries up.

The studies that show problems with saturated facts lumped the man-made trans fats with natural saturated facts. These are not all the same. In fact, there are good trans fats, like CLA, which you find in grass-fed meats and milk. Equating these compounds with Crisco is just bad science. Saturated fats are an entire family of compounds. It's not just a single boogy-man out there. There are good and bad compounds that are in the family of saturated fats. The bad ones are damn near always man made.

Saturated fats are good to cook with, in fact, better than a mono-unsaturated in most cases because they are much more heat stable and don't oxidize. If you cook with a light olive oil, you'll end up producing all sorts of nasty oxides which are a much more detrimental than than any complaint you could have with naturally occurring saturated fats.

Of course, you don't care about this because you come from a 'fat is evil' paradigm, so that's all you see. We do not all believe what you do.

As far as milk goes, I think there are probably good and bad aspects to it. It causes a big insulin response, which I'm not a fan of in most cases. Post workout, though, it's probably not too bad a deal. The cheap stuff is pretty dodgy with respect to what chemicals it might contain. If you get grass-fed milk, then it's pretty good stuff as long as you tolerate milk (cream top from Trader Joe's is a good option). Many people have trouble with digesting casein and if you do, then you should probably avoid it. At the end of the day, milk is very effective at making small mammals into big mammals. If you're a bodybuilder doing a mass gain, then you're hard-pressed to do better.

That's a good synopsis. Thank you...

And you make good points (assuming that the research behind those points is valid). But, still, I have reservations about it:

1) The current state of nutritional research is biased, polarized and fragmented. It is barely up to the level of identifying differences at the macro level without getting down into the micro level that you speak of. (And, that is not to say that the science you site is not valid -- but rather to be trustworthy science it needs to tested with peer reviewed with large scale, long term studies and that has not happened.

2) Breaking fats down like you do is like breaking protein down into its amino acids. People just can't do it reliably. When I buy something at Trader Joes the only things I know about it are printed on the label.

For myself, I will stick (mostly) to conventional medical advice -- which is summarized by the American Heart Association in their most recent guidelines as: (emphasis mine)

2. Aim for a dietary pattern that achieves 5% to 6% of
calories from saturated fat.
3. Reduce percent of calories from saturated fat.

4. Reduce percent of calories from trans fat.

Actually, for myself, I strive to exceed those guidelines rather than simply meet them. In so doing, I have realized that, with a few easily corrected exceptions (like vitamin B12), there is no reason to eat animal products. I can get all the fats, protein and nutrients I need from a whole food, plant based diet. (I just can't do it in a McD's)

Wow never realized my question would turn into such a rant. So to ask now. If milk is so bad. Then what should i use for a good source of calcium and recovery.

As chocolate milk has been shown to be one of the best recovery drinks, best combination of carbos and protein, am i not mistaken?

Essentially, cow's milk is "liquid meat" and, as such, it has much of the same benefits (such as protein and other stuff) and draw backs (such as saturated fat and other stuff) as red meat does...

In addition, milk (whether from a cow or human) passes much of what the mother ingests straight through to whoever drinks it. In the case of cow's milk that will include all the hormones, antibiotics and chemicals that the cow was fed to keep it healthy... So, although I am largely ambivalent about organic products, I would insist on organic milk...

It is up to you to weigh the pros and cons...

Much of the debate centered around the assumption (fostered by the dairy industry) that cow's milk is 100% good for you with no hidden costs...

It's interesting to consider that milk is the only substance evolved to feed mammals. We're complete predators otherwise. The plant parts we eat were evolved for the benefit of the plant, not the animals that might eat it. If you're eating soybean or almond derived products, your eating that plant's young! Plants do in some cases evolve defenses like husks, shells, thorns or other physical protection against predation, but some evolve chemical deterrents or poisons as well.

Fruits are interesting in that many evolved to be eaten by animals as a means of transportation and fertilization of the contained seeds, which were hardened to survive digestion. Again they were evolved for the benefit of the plants and to exploit the animals that would eat the fruit, not for the benefit of the animals.

It's interesting to consider that milk is the only substance evolved to feed mammals. We're complete predators otherwise. The plant parts we eat were evolved for the benefit of the plant, not the animals that might eat it. If you're eating soybean or almond derived products, your eating that plant's young! Plants do in some cases evolve defenses like husks, shells, thorns or other physical protection against predation, but some evolve chemical deterrents or poisons as well.

Fruits are interesting in that many evolved to be eaten by animals as a means of transportation and fertilization of the contained seeds, which were hardened to survive digestion. Again they were evolved for the benefit of the plants and to exploit the animals that would eat the fruit, not for the benefit of the animals.

Nature has a pretty interesting yin/yang going on, doesn't it? It also can be related to economic theory where when everyone does what is best for them, it turns out best for the group as a whole.

It's interesting to consider that milk is the only substance evolved to feed mammals. We're complete predators otherwise. The plant parts we eat were evolved for the benefit of the plant, not the animals that might eat it. If you're eating soybean or almond derived products, your eating that plant's young! Plants do in some cases evolve defenses like husks, shells, thorns or other physical protection against predation, but some evolve chemical deterrents or poisons as well.

Fruits are interesting in that many evolved to be eaten by animals as a means of transportation and fertilization of the contained seeds, which were hardened to survive digestion. Again they were evolved for the benefit of the plants and to exploit the animals that would eat the fruit, not for the benefit of the animals.

That sounds more like ideology and religion than nutrition.

You could make pretty much the same type of claims about eating meat. That mama cow didn't give birth to her baby for OUR benefit -- and the baby cow would deny that she was there just to provide lunch for us. True, they can't exist without us -- but that's because we bred the natural critter who could self-sustain out of them...

You could make pretty much the same type of claims about eating meat. That mama cow didn't give birth to her baby for OUR benefit -- and the baby cow would deny that she was there just to provide lunch for us.

Various grasses cover a huge portion of the planet. It's a shame, but we can't eat it. Our bodies just do not have the ability to process it. A cow can, though, and when it does it grows and creates a huge mass of nutrient dense/rich food that our bodies digests quite well. The closest thing that modern man has come up with as an equivalent is the ability to make various protein powders and, maybe to a lesser extent, cheese.

I don't think it takes an ideology or religion to see the connection from one thing to another in this picture.

Various grasses cover a huge portion of the planet. Our bodies just do not have the ability to process it. .....

Wheat, rice, rye, barley, oats....
... Darn! You should have told me that I can't eat that stuff sooner!

The truth is: our bodies and our digestive systems are extremely adaptable... I've heard the argument that meat is digested with secretions from our liver and pancreas and plants are digested by bacteria. That's partially true. But, regardless, we do digest them. And, those parts that we do not digest (fiber) aid in the whole process.

No, I think the argument that we were designed to eat meat (period) is half of the truth -- because we were also designed to eat plants.

Originally, we ate whatever we could find -- we were most probably scavengers. And, if a saber tooth tiger left a piece of meat on a bone, we would chase the vultures away and eat it. We would also eat plants. Whatever was available and whatever would keep us alive.

But, since our life span only lasted a few years past the reproductive stage, health and nutrition was not as much a concern as simply staying alive till tomorrow.

Today we have the luxury to choose and to debate over what we "should" be eating...

Wow never realized my question would turn into such a rant. So to ask now. If milk is so bad. Then what should i use for a good source of calcium and recovery.

As chocolate milk has been shown to be one of the best recovery drinks, best combination of carbos and protein, am i not mistaken?

Milk is not bad for you. Quite the opposite. Unless you are lactose intolerant or casein sensitive, which amounts to a very small percentage of the population, it's one of the best fuels and recovery drinks available to us. Our local food coop sells organic raw unpasteurized whole milk. It flies off the shelves. Demand outstrips supply. It's the largest single calorie source for Kenyan runners. Humans have been drinking it for thousands of years. When I competed in Nordic XC, I'd drink two 12 oz. glasses of whole milk with breakfast and more during the day. It's good stuff. Don't worry about it.

The ranters are ranters. The unpopularity of their views with the general populace only encourages them, because if most people don't believe it, that proves they're right. Notice that most of the experienced top cyclists who used to post here have left this forum. This is a common pattern that has persisted ever since the early bulletin boards and unmoderated email lists. And unfortunately, there is nothing to be done about it. Eventually such BBs and lists empty out except for the ranters, who may continue talking to each other for all eternity for all we know.

Especially when it comes to gluten grains, I've mentioned they're not great for you. Go ahead and try to eat grass like a cow and see how far you get!

I avoid eating wheat, rice, rye and other grains, except...I do eat oats and Kasha...Kasha is a gluten-free seed not related to any other grains. It's also much healthier and better tasting...Barley is acceptable to eat, barley has the lowest glycemic index of all grains. If I am going to be eating barley I first soak it and ferment it in a solution of water with a little bit of yogurt for about 24 hours, before cooking it. Fermentation breaks down the grain and releases nutrients and also neutralizes some of the harmful substances and makes them easier to digest.

Milk is not bad for you. Quite the opposite. Unless you are lactose intolerant or casein sensitive, which amounts to a very small percentage of the population, it's one of the best fuels and recovery drinks available to us. Our local food coop sells organic raw unpasteurized whole milk. It flies off the shelves. Demand outstrips supply. It's the largest single calorie source for Kenyan runners. Humans have been drinking it for thousands of years. When I competed in Nordic XC, I'd drink two 12 oz. glasses of whole milk with breakfast and more during the day. It's good stuff. Don't worry about it.

The ranters are ranters. The unpopularity of their views with the general populace only encourages them, because if most people don't believe it, that proves they're right. Notice that most of the experienced top cyclists who used to post here have left this forum. This is a common pattern that has persisted ever since the early bulletin boards and unmoderated email lists. And unfortunately, there is nothing to be done about it. Eventually such BBs and lists empty out except for the ranters, who may continue talking to each other for all eternity for all we know.